Note: The Guardian and I were delighted, after fighting PG&E since 1969 to enforce the public power mandates of the federal Raker Act, to see the SF Board of Supervisors finally start the process rolling on a veto-proof 8-3 vote. Even the San Francisco Chronicle, after all these decades of opposition to public power, noted in its Monday story by John Cote:
"The move would effectively end Pacific Gas & Electric Co.'s decades-long monopoly on the consumer power market in San Francisco, and it would lay the groundwork for the city to generate its own power in the future.
"Public power has long been a goal of major contingent on the city's political left. The contract approval comes eight years after the city began setting up a community choice aggregation program, which allows municipalities to choose alternativve energy providers."
Two of the PG&E 3 are my supervisors--Sup. Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chiu. (I live in West Portal in Elsbernd's district and a few blocks from Chiu's Sunset district.) Sup. Mark Farrell was the third PG&E vote. I was curious how in 2012, after PG&E's misbehavior in the San Bruno blast and after its corporate shenanigans in San Francisco, after all the work that has been done by public power advocates and the San Francsico Public Utilities Commission on CCA, could Elsbernd, Chiu and Farrell vote with PG&E and against public/clean/renewable power. I sent them emails asking some Impertinent Questions. Farrell and Chiu didn't reply. Elsbernd to his credit did. Here is the back and forth: .
B3 to Sup. Elsbernd,
As a constituent, I am curious why you voted last week with PG&E and against clean energy and public power on the PG&E vote and didn't say anything during the discussion. I am also curious why, as a neighborhood supervisor, you seem to always vote with the Chamber of Commerce (l00 per cent, according to its last score card) and did so again on this vote. On what major vote have you differed with the Chamber and PG&E?
I will run your answer on my blog. Thanks, b3
Sean to B3
I opposed the proposal because I have a real concern about the potential for a number of our neighbors becoming unwilling customers of this program. I said nothing because I believe Supervisor Farrell and Chu expressed the point quite well.
Perhaps the biggest issue on which I differed from the Chamber was Proposition A in 2007, the MTA set aside sponsored by Supervisor Peskin. I played a large role in supporting that measure, while the Chamber opposed it.
I am curious - on what issues has the Bay Guardian differed from SEIU 1021?
B3 to Sean
Thanks, supervisor. Many issues with the SEIU and labor, and many involving their support of what we call Manhattanization and the over building of projects. The Guardian is friendly to SEIU and labor, but we often differ on endorsements of candidates and propositions, as you can see from Wednesday's edition. b3
Sean to B3
Interesting. I have never seen SEIU 1021 support controversial building proposals; I have, of course seen the Building Trades and other labor support for such construction, just have not see SEIU. I'll take your word for it.
B3 to Sean
Thanks, supervisor. I like your idea of the new Goat Hill Pizza in West Portal bringing us together.
You have always answered my Impertinent Questions. I appreciate it. I'll miss you. Good luck. B3
Most Commented On
- :P - May 24, 2013
- I am third generation San - May 24, 2013
- I agree, "So what?" comes across as yet another person with an - May 24, 2013
- To Rockydoesit: I just saw a - May 24, 2013
- Lindsay was a great mayor! - May 24, 2013
- Lindsay rocked! - May 24, 2013
- So you're fine with other - May 24, 2013
- It's highly doubtful that gays are accepted less than - May 24, 2013
- Was "Bestemor" the handle you used at SFGate? - May 24, 2013
- Nobody is forced to take a job in SF and so I fail to - May 24, 2013